331,3 

Er44c 


The  person  charging  this  material  is  re¬ 
sponsible  for  its  return  to  the  library  from 
which  it  was  withdrawn  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft/  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books  are  reasons 
for  disciplinary  action  and  may  result  in  dismissal  from 
the  University. 

To  renew  call  Telephone  Center,  333-8400 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS  LIBRARY  AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/childlaborlegislOOeric 


National  (Etfilii  IGabor  Committee. 

105  EAST  22D  STREET 
N  EW  YORK  CITY 

[Reprint®*!  from  the  Proceedings  of  the  First  Annual  Meeting  of  the  National 
Child  Labor  Committee,  New  York  Citv,  February  14-16,  1905,  as  published  by 
the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Philadelphia,  in  The  Annals 
I  of  the  Academy,  Yol.  XXV.,  No.  3,  May,  1905.] 

CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  AND  METHODS  OF 
ENFORCEMENT  IN  NORTHERN  CENTRAL  STATES 


Halford  Erickson, 
Commissioner  of  Labor,  Wisconsin. 


The  enforcement  of  child  labor  laws  is,  in  effect,  an  attempt  to 
reconcile  by  law  two  apparently  diverging  economic  interests.  The 
child  labor  problem  has  been  co-existent  with  the  growth  of  manu¬ 
facturing  and  early  required  the  attention  of  state  legislatures.  Half 
a  century  ago  child  labor  laws  were  found  on  the  statute  books  of 
some  of  the  Northern  and  Central  States.  These  early  efforts  were 
crude  and  ineffective,  but  they  formed  the  nucleus  of  the-,present 
fairly  comprehensive  systems  which  have  to  a  large  extent  allayed 
the  evils  of  child  labor. 

From  the  outset  these  laws  have  had  to  contend  with  a  large 
variety  of  deterring  influences.  Manufacturers  with  the  ever  in¬ 
creasing  desire  for  high  profits,  the  lack  of  sympathy  for  the  laboring  . 
classes,  and  in  many  instances  the  honest  belief  that  child  labor 
was  necessary  for  the  continuance  of  their  business,  together  with 
the  natural  opposition  of  the  employees  who  considered  such  laws 
as  an  infringement  upon  their  personal  liberty  and  privileges,  made 
difficult  the  enactment  of  proper  laws,  and  because  of  which  enforce¬ 
ment  was  practically  impossible.  With  the  rapid  growth  of  manu¬ 
facturing  in  these  states  public  opinion  and  the  majority  of  the 
employers  have  come  to  understand  the  necessity  and  eminent  fair¬ 
ness  of  restrictive  legislation. 

The  development  of  the  child  labor  laws  has  been  in  many 
instances  a  series  of  compromises.  Nearly  every  step  forward  was 
gained  by  the  sacrifice,  temporarily  at  least,  of  some  provision  which 
in  that  respect  was  a  regressive  movement,  so  determined  was  the 
opposition.  One  state  after  another  adopted  measures  which  on 
their  face  appeared  to  reach  the  difficulty,  but  which  failed  of  their 
purpose  because  they  lacked  the  first  essential  of  a  successful  child 


2 


Child  Labor  Legislation  in  Northern  Central  States 


labor  law,  an  appreciation  of  the  weakness  of  human  nature,  and 
adequate  provisions  for  enforcement.  Our  whole  experience  with 
law  and  order  demonstrates  that  to  arouse  public  interest  in  the 
child,  to  awaken  from  lethargy  the  public  official  to  the  realization 
and  confession  that  a  genuine  evil  exists,  is  a  comparatively  easy 
matter;  but  to  crystallize  this  sentiment  into  law,  to  enact  a  system 
of  corrective  legislation  supplemented  by  adequate  machinery  of 
enforcement  is  a  proposition  fraught  with  no  little  difficulty.  It  has 
always  been  easy  to  convince,  but  hard  to  persuade. 

The  gradual  growth  of  this  class  of  legislation  in  the  North¬ 
west  from  the  earliest  efforts  down  to  the  present  time  can  best  be 
observed  by  tracing  the  development  in  one  particular  state  and 
comparing  the  problems  and  the  attempts  at  solution  with  similar 
tendencies  in  the  neighboring  commonwealths.  The  state  of  Wis¬ 
consin  will  be  taken  for  this  purpose,  first,  because  of  its  varied 
experience  with  child  labor  legislation,  and,  secondly,  because 
through  its  remedial  statutes  it  has  constructed  probably  one  of  the 
most  effective  systems. 

Wisconsin  first  recognized  the  child  labor  problem  in  1877  by 
a  law  which  prohibited  the  employment  of  children  under  12  years 
of  age,  during  the  school  year,  in  factories  where  conditions  were 
deemed  injurious  to  their  health.  The  law  was  a  failure,  so  far  as 
results  were  concerned,  because  of  its  indefinite  application,  low  age 
limit,  and  its  failure  to  provide  any  effective  means  for  enforcement. 
It  only  provided  that  district  attorneys  should  prosecute  violations 
on  complaint,  but  there  being  no  one  charged  by  law  with  the  duty 
of  investigating  the  places  of  employment,  few  complaints  were 
made,  and  the  law  was  very  generally  disregarded.  Amendments  in 
the  following  year  made  the  law  more  definite  and  certain,  but  still 
provided  no  means  for  enforcement.  The  legislature  failed  to 
realize  that  men  who  see  a  pecuniary  profit  in  violating  a  law  will 
not  desist  simply  to  satisfy  their  conscience  as  to  the  commission 
of  an  act  merely  prohibited  and  made  illegal. 

In  1883  the  bureau  of  labor  was  created  and  charged  with  the 
duty  of  enforcing  the  law,  but  was  given  no  facilities  for  doing  so. 
This  act  was  an  important  step,  not  so  much  for  its  own  provisions, 
but  in  that  it  provided  a  framework  about  which  to  erect  the  machin¬ 
ery  for  enforcement  which  it  was  seen  would  have  to  be  adopted 
in  the  near  future  if  the  child  labor  law  was  ever  to  become  more 


Child  Labor  Legislation  in  Northern  Central  States  3 

than  a  mere  threat  to  the  violators.  In  1885  a  factory  inspector 
was  provided  for,  but  as  his  duties  went  no  further  than  to  post  the 
law  in  the  places  of  employment  inspected  by  him,  his  influence 
was  really  small. 

In  1889  the  legislature  made  a  general  revision  of  the  child  labor 
laws.  The  age  limit  was  raised  to  thirteen  years,  and  the  law 
extended  not  only  to  factories,  workshops  and  mines,  but  also  to 
stores,  places  of  business  and  places  of  amusement.  This  measure 
by  its  increase  in  the  minimum  age  limit,  and  extended  scope,  repre¬ 
sented  a  considerable  advance  in  the  accepted  views  as  to  restrict¬ 
ive  legislation,  but  the  one  positive  essential  to  a  successful  and 
adequate  means  for  enforcement,  was  still  lacking. 

Another  weakness  of  the  law  of  1889  was  the  introduction  of 
the  permit  system.  While  it  made  unlawful  the  employment  of 
children  under  thirteen  years  of  age,  it  authorized  the  county  judges 
to  grant  permits  at  their  discretion,  excepting  from  the  operation  of 
the  law  children  over  ten  years  who  could  read  and  write  English. 
It  was  the  intention  of  the  permit  provision  so  to  modify  the  law  as 
to  enable  persons  really  in  need  of  the  earnings  of  their  children  to 
get  early  assistance  from  this  source.  This  system  presupposes 
that  the  officer  granting  the  permit  will  make  an  investigation  of 
each  particular  case.  Since  in  practice,  the  only  source  of  informa¬ 
tion  to  the  judge  is  the  applicant  himself,  it  was  not  surprising  that 
the  prospect  of  exemption  from  the  law  should  awaken  a  disregard 
for  the  truth,  and  the  officers  be  overwhelmed  with  tales  of  misfor¬ 
tunes.  The  judges,  whose  regular  duties  already  more  than  occu¬ 
pied  their  time,  found  it  impossible  to  investigate  each  case,  and 
giving  the  applicant  the  benefit  of  the  doubt,  generally  granted  the 
permit.  Under  this  practice  the  restrictive  age  was  really  lowered 
to  ten  years,  making  it  a  regressive  rather  than  a  progressive  pro¬ 
vision. 

In  1891  the  legal  age  was  again  increased  from  thirteen  to  four¬ 
teen  years,  and  the  minimum  age  at  which  county  judges  could 
grant  permits  was  raised  from  ten  to  twelve  years.  This  law  also 
made  it  the  duty  of  the  labor  commissioner  and  factory  inspectors 
to  prosecute  violations  of  the  law.  But  the  entire  factory  inspection 
force  at  this  time  consisted  of  only  two  persons.  To  inspect  the 
factories  of  the  state  and  to  enforce  laws  relating  to  dangerous  and 
unsanitary  conditions  of  employment,  fire-escapes  and  other  safe- 


4  Child  Labor  Legislation  in  Northern  Central  States 

guards  of  the  public  health  in  accordance  with  those  laws  which 
were  capable  of  enforcement  and  violations  of  which  were  more 
readily  detectable  was  a  much  larger  task  than  would  occupy  the 
time  of  the  most  diligent  inspectors.  Moreover,  their  time  could  be 
devoted  to  this  work  with  far  greater  profit  to  the  state  than  could 
possibly  result  from  the  thankless  and  disagreeable  task  of  attempt¬ 
ing  to  enforce  child  labor  laws  which  were  entirely  inadequate  and 
destined  to  prove  a  failure  from  the  start.  So  that,  while  on  the 
one  hand  the  lack  of  provision  for  enforcement  of  the  law  operated 
to  divert  the  attention  of  the  factory  inspectors  to  other  more  fruit¬ 
ful  laws,  the  permit  system,  on  the  other  hand,  operated  to  virtually 
legalize  the  employment  of  child  labor  down  to  the  limit  of  ten  or 
twelve  years  of  age  and  in  many  instances  to  vitiate  whatever  en¬ 
forcement  was  attempted. 

The  situation  in  Wisconsin  under  this  law  is  aptly  summarized 
by  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  in  his  report  for  1897-1898.  He  says: 
“To  completely  enforce  the  law  has  been  found  very  difficult.  The 
reasons  for  this  may  primarily  be  found  in  the  facts  that  it  is  so 
frequently  violated  and  that  these  violations  are,  as  a  rule,  very 
hard  to  establish.  The  reasons  for  this  are  easily  guessed  at.  The 
inspectors  cannot  tell  the  exact  age  of  the  child  from  its  appearance 
alone.  By  common  understanding  the  children  themselves,  their 
parents,  and  not  seldom  the  employer,  usually  endeavor  to  deceive 
the  inspectors  on  this  point.  Besides  this  there  is  in  this  state  a 
notable  lack  of  reliable  or  complete  birth  records.  Roundabout  and 
laborious  methods  are  therefore  necessary  in  order  to  obtain  data 
relating  to  the  ages  of  children  that  are  complete  enough  to  furnish 
a  safe  basis  for  further  proceedings.  While  the  first  step  to  obtain 
data  as  to  their  ages  consists  of  a  personal  examination  of  the  child, 
this  seldom  brings  the  desired  result.  They  are  ready  enough  to 
answer  all  questions,  but  experience  soon  teaches  that  the  replies 
given  concerning  their  ages  cannot  be  depended  upon.  As  a  rule, 
the  children  do  not  only  studiously  misrepresent  their  age,  if  younger 
than  the  age  limit  fixed  by  the  law,  but  besides  this  they  also,  as  a 
rule,  are  provided  with  certificates  signed  by  their  parents  or  others 
concerned  showing  that  they  are  fourteen  years  of  age  or  past, 
regardless  of  the  facts  of  the  case.  Cases  have  even  been  met  with 
where  parents,  anxious  to  either  obtain  employment  for  their  little 
ones  or  to  keep  them  at  work,  have  changed  the  records  of  their 


I  i 

Child  Labor  Legislation  in  Northern  Central  States  5 

ages  in  the  family  Bible  and  other  places.  Numerous  other  devices 
for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  the  inspectors  are  constantly  resorted 
to.  The  obstacles  of  all  kinds  which  the  inspectors  must  overcome 
in  order  to  perform  their  duties  are  often  both  unpleasant  and 
very  difficult.” 

It  was  not  until  1899  that  the  Wisconsin  child  labor  problem  was 
taken  up  by  the  legislature  in  anything  like  a  serious  manner.  The 
law  then  adopted  retained  the  permit  system  to  exempt  children 
in  needy  circumstances,  but  the  authority  to  grant  such  permits  was 
also  vested  in  the  labor  commissioner  and  factory  inspectors.  The 
most  important  provision,  however,  was  in  the  recognition  of  the 
cause  of  former  failures,  that  is,  the  lack  of  provisions  for  enforce¬ 
ment,  and  hence  when  this  law  provided  for  six  additional  factory 
inspectors  it  appeared  that  the  day  of  rigid  enforcement  was  now 
at  hand.  The  law  prohibited  the  employment  of  children  under 
fourteen  years  at  any  time  in  factories,  shops  or  mines  and  at  any 
time  except  during  the  vacation  of  the  public  school  in  stores,  laun¬ 
dries  and  the  messenger  service.  By  an  amendment  in  1901,  the 
application  of  this  law  was  extended  to  prohibit  the  employment  of 
children  under  fourteen  years  of  age  in  bowling  alleys,  bar-rooms 
and  beer  gardens.  The  law  also  authorized  the  commissioner  of 
labor  and  the  factory  inspectors  to  prosecute  all  violations  of  the 
law,  and  added  a  new  provision  which  required  employers  of  child 
labor  to  have  and  keep  on  file  and  accessible  to  the  factory  inspectors, 
affidavits  of  parents  of  all  children  under  sixteen  years  of  age. 
These  affidavits  were  to  be  regularly  sworn  statements,  showing  the 
name,  place  and  date  of  birth  of  the  child  and  the  place  and  time 
of  school  attendance.  By  this  latter  provision  it  was  not  intended 
to  restrict  child  labor  under  sixteen  years,  but  by  requiring  the 
affidavits  for  all  children  under  that  age  it  was  believed  to  be  easier 
to  enforce  the  restriction  as  to  fourteen  years. 

It  was  hoped  that  this  provision  would  help  to  solve  the  child 
labor  problem.  Indeed,  the  first  few  months  of  its  operation  bore 
out  this  expectation,  but  an  unfortunate  tendency  soon  manifested 
itself,  the  temptation  to  falsify  affidavits.  In  anticipation  of  just 
such  methods  the  affidavit  had  required  a  statement  of  school  attend¬ 
ance,  to  be  referred  to  in  case  of  discrepancies,  but  the  number  of 
obviously  false  affidavits  increased  so  rapidly  that  inspectors  found 
themselves  swamped  in  trying  to  investigate  them.  Employers  in 


6  Child  Labor  Legislation  in  Northern  Central  States 

the  name  of  industrial  necessity  secretly  encouraged  this  demoral¬ 
izing  tendency  adopted  by  unscrupulous  parents,  which  robbed  the 
schools  and  instructed  the  children  in  the  arts  of  falsification,  as 
to  the  extent  of  which  they  had  not  the  slightest  conception.  The 
rapid  growth  of  this  vicious  practice  demonstrated  emphatically 
that  the  affidavit  system  was  not  adapted  as  a  means  for  successful 
enforcement  of  child  labor  legislation. 

The  facts  growing  out  of  this  condition  of  affairs  were  laid 
before  the  legislature  of  1903  which  again  revised  the  law,  abolish¬ 
ing  the  affidavit  system  and  in  place  of  affidavits  by  parents  required 
all  employed  children  from  fourteen  to  sixteen  years  of  age  to 
obtain  permits  from  the  commissioner  of  labor,  factory  inspectors, 
$r  judges  of  the  county,  municipal  or  juvenile  courts,  authorizing 
the  employment  of  the  child  during  such  time  as  the  officer  granting 
the  permit  may  fix.  These  officers  are  required  to  keep  a  record 
of  the  name,  age  and  school  attended  by  such  child  and  a  report  as 
to  the  number  of  permits  issued  must  be  sent  to  the  commissioner 
of  labor  or  factory  inspector.  When  the  granting  officer  has  reason 
to  doubt  the  age  of  any  child  applying  for  a  permit  he  may  demand 
proof  of  such  child’s  age  by  the  production  of  a  verified  baptismal 
certificate,  or  a  duly  attested  birth  certificate,  or  in  case  such  cer¬ 
tificate  cannot  be  secured,  then  the  record  of  age  as  stated  in  the 
first  school  enrollment  of  such  child,  and  in  case  no  such  proof 
can  be  secured  then  by  the  production  of  such  other  proof  as  will 
satisfy  the  officer  authorized  to  issue  the  permit.  No  permit  is 
to  be  granted  under  this  law  unless  proof  of  the  child’s  age  is  filed 
with  the  commissioner  of  labor  or  other  granting  officer.  The 
filing  of  such  a  permit  by  the  employer  is  a  condition  precedent  to 
legal  employment.  A  child  of  legal  age  finds  little  difficulty  in 
securing  satisfactory  proof,  but  it  is  practically  impossible  for  per¬ 
sons  not  entitled  to  permits  to  deceive  a  diligent  official.  Under 
this  law  it  is  possible  to  enforce  the  child  labor  law  in  Wisconsin, 
a  thing  impossible  under  the  affidavit  system. 

Turning  now  to  the  other  Northern  Central  States,  the  first  child 
labor  laws  were  adopted  as  follows:  Ohio  in  1852,  Illinois  in  1877, 
Indiana  in  1881  and  Michigan  in  1885.  These  laws,  with  the 
amendments  adopted  by  the  next  succeeding  legislatures  prohibited 
under  a  penalty  the  employment  of  children  in  certain  occupations 
which  were  deemed  especially  injurious  to  them,  fixed  the  age  limit 


Child  Labor  Legislation  in  Northern  Central  States  7 

under  which  no  child  could  be  employed  at  any  labor,  and  fixed 
the  number  of  hours  they  might  be  employed  in  other  occupations. 
The  age  limit  for  factory  work  was  placed  at  twelve  years  in 
Illinois,  Indiana  and  Ohio,  and  at  fourteen  years  in  Michigan  unless 
such  child  had  attended  public  school  for  four  months  of  the  year 
in  which  he  sought  employment,  when  the  age  limit  was  put  as  low 
as  ten  years. 

Adequate  penalties  were  provided  in  each  case  for  violations, 
but  the  laws  were  of  little  avail  because  of  their  indefiniteness,  low 
age  limits,  and  like  the  Wisconsin  laws  failed  principally  because 
they  did  not  provide  means  for  enforcement.  Each  law  provided  in 
effect  that  a  violator  of  the  same  should  be  liable  to  prosecution 
before  any  justice  of  the  peace  or  court  of  competent  jurisdiction  in 
the  county  in  which  the  illegal  employment  was  given,  but  left  the 
duty  of  instituting  such  prosecutions  to  irresponsible  and  voluntary 
initiative.  As  was  to  be  expected,  few  complaints  were  ever  made 
to  the  district  attorneys  and  prosecutions  were  so  rarely  heard  of 
that  instead  of  restricting  the  employment  of  children,  the  law  was 
ineffective  and  child  labor  increased  with  the  rapid  growth  of  manu¬ 
facturing.  The  legislatures  had  not  yet  learned  that  a  social  evil  is 
not  remedied  merely  by  making  it  illegal. 

To  better  enforce  the  law  bureaus  of  labor  and  departments 
of  inspection  were  created,  entrusted  with  the  duty  of  prosecuting 
violations  of  the  law.  Along  with  these  provisions  was  a  general 
movement  to  increase  the  age  limit  to  fourteen  years  and  extend 
the  application  of  the  law  to  mercantile  establishments,  offices,  hotels, 
laundries,  etc.  Manufacturers  were  required  to  keep  a  record  of  all 
minors  in  their  employment,  stating  their  names,  ages  and  residence, 
which  were  to  be  substantiated  by  affidavits  of  parents,  kept  on  file. 
Factory  inspectors  were  authorized  and  empowered  to  visit  and 
inspect  all  manufacturing  and  mercantile  establishments  and  report 
all  violations  to  the  district  attorneys  who  were  to  prosecute  such 
violations.  Ohio  adopted  such  a  law  in  1885,  Illinois  in  1893  and 
Indiana  in  1897. 

Michigan  did  not  follow  this  course  in  her  legislation.  It  placed 
the  duty  of  enforcing  the  child  labor  laws  on  the  local  police  force. 
The  chief  or  superintendent  in  all  cities  was  authorized  to  inspect 
places  of  employment  and  prosecute  any  violations  of  the  law.  If 
necessary  he  was  empowered  to  detail  a  part  of  the  force  on  duty  of 


8  Child  Labor  Legislation  in  Northern  Central  States 

this  nature.  In  the  city  of  Detroit  the  board  of  building  inspectors 
was  given  concurrent  jurisdiction  with  the  police,  while  in  towns 
the  duty  of  enforcement  was  placed  on  the  supervisors.  This  law 
was  repealed  in  1895  and  as  in  other  states  the  enforcement  was 
placed  in  the  hands  of  factory  inspectors. 

The  legislation  of  this  period  which  for  convenience  may  be 
called  the  second  period  of  development,  introduced  the  affidavit 
and  permit  systems.  By  these  laws  a  minor  applying  for  employ¬ 
ment  was  required  to  present  an  affidavit  from  his  parents  or  guard¬ 
ians  stating  his  name,  age  and  residence,  which  was  to  be  placed 
on  file  by  the  employer  for  reference  in  case  of  investigations.  As 
the  laws  only  fixed  a  minimum  age  and  made  in  several  instances 
two  exceptions,  first  where  the  earnings  were  necessary  to  support 
parents  in  indigent  circumstances,  and  second,  the  permitting  of 
employment  during  school  vacations,  and  such  periods  as  the  com¬ 
pulsory  education  laws  permitted,  a  ready  method  for  evasion  was 
provided  which  was  not  long  neglected.  In  each  of  the  states, 
parents  finding  the  comparative  ease  with  which  the  law  could  be 
evaded  easily,  yielded  to  the  temptation  to  forswear  themselves  and 
many  children  were  found  at  work  who  were  clearly  not  of  the 
required  age,  yet  possessing  the  proper  affidavits  could  not  be 
removed.  Record  evidence  not  being  available  for  comparison  as  to 
ages,  and  the  number  of  inspectors  in  each  state  being  far  too  inade¬ 
quate  to  deal  with  the  question  properly,  the  number  of  children 
employed  was  not  very  materially  reduced.  In  Illinois  alone  the 
number  of  child  laborers  seems  to  have  doubled  during  five  years 
and  Ohio  and  Indiana  showed  large  increases. 

The  present  laws  are  the  result  of  efforts  to  remedy  practically 
similar  difficulties  and  as  might  be  expected  have  many  provisions 
in  common.  The  minimum  age  limit  is  placed  in  all  the  states  at 
fourteen  years  except  in  Ohio  where  it  is  thirteen  years.  Manufac¬ 
turers  are  required  in  some  states  to  keep  the  regular  record  of 
minors  employed  and  to  post  in  a  conspicuous  place  a  list  of  such 
minors  with  the  ages  which  are  to  be  substantiated  by  affidavits 
of  the  parents  placed  on  file  with  the  employers,  and  to  be  sub¬ 
mitted  to  the  factory  inspectors  on  request.  The  Wisconsin  pro¬ 
vision  for  enforcing  the  fourteen  year  limit  by  requiring  permits 
for  all  children  up  to  sixteen  years  is  in  general  use.  The  Ohio  law 
provides  that  no  boy  under  fifteen  years  and  no  girl  under  sixteen 


Child  Labor  Legislation  in  Northern  Central  States  9 

years  is  to  be  employed  for  wages  at  any  time  while  the  public  school 
is  in  session.  Indiana  prohibits  the  employment,  except  during 
school  vacations,  of  children  under  sixteen  years  who  cannot  read 
or  write  simple  English  sentences. 

The  operation  of  the  affidavit  system  as  it  is  in  vogue  in  these 
states  seems  far  from  satisfactory  and  reflects  all  the  weakness  of  the 
Wisconsin  law  of  1899.  Such  a  system  is  necessarily  based  on  the 
theory  that  the  parent  in  making  the  affidavit  will  be  guided  by 
perfect  honesty.  Experience  shows  that  just  the  contrary  is  true. 
These  laws  all  have  the  same  end  in  view,  the  provision  for  the 
safe-guarding  of  life  and  health  and  a  development  in  harmony 
with  industrial  and  educational  civilization,  but  their  ineffectiveness 
is  largely  due  to  a  lack  of  understanding  of  the  fallibility  of  human 
nature.  Where  the  game  is  worth  the  candle  human  ingenuity  is 
well  nigh  inexhaustible,  and  even  to  maintain  existing  regulations 
constant  vigilance  of  legislative  bodies  is  necessary.  Some  people 
will  always  evade  the  law,  but  when  opportunity  is  given  so  that 
violations  become  so  frequent  and  insistent  that  the  limited  number 
of  inspectors  find  it  impossible  to  compare  the  affidavits  with  record 
evidence,  the  law  ceases  to  be  effective,  perjury  and  dishonesty 
receive  material  rewards  and  the  prohibitive  law  becomes  permis¬ 
sive.  Such  affidavits  cannot  be  easily  attacked  since  the  burden  of 
proof  in  each  case  is  on  the  inspectors.  Where  parents  refuse  to 
forswear  themselves  or  the  violation  is  so  flagrant  as  to  be  apparent 
on  the  mere  examination  of  the  child  the  law  does  succeed  in  reduc¬ 
ing  the  number  of  child  laborers.  Two  other  expedients  have  also 
been  adopted.  They  are,  first,  the  requirement  of  certificates  of 
physical  fitness,  and  secondly,  requirements  for  a  knowledge  of 
reading  and  writing.  The  first  provision  enables  the  factory  inspec¬ 
tors  to  require  any  child  which  appears  to  him  to  be  physically 
unfit  for  labor  to  undergo  a  physical  examination  and  is  only  re¬ 
tained  in  employment  when  such  examination  reveals  a  healthy  con¬ 
stitution.  This  provision  has  been  very  effective  in  removing  from 
the  glass,  cutlery  and  garment  trades  a  large  number  of  cripples 
and  deformed  children.  The  educational  provision  has  been  more 
difficult  of  enforcement  due  to  the  lethargy  of  school  authorities. 

Experience  shows  that  it  is  wrong  both  in  practice  and  prin¬ 
ciple  to  permit  any  exemptions  from  the  law.  Indeed  to  do  so  is 
really  to  amend  the  law  and  substitute  the  exceptions  in  place  of 


io  Child  Labor  Legislation  in  Northern  Central  States 

the  original  intention  of  the  law.  To  authorize  the  employment 
of  a  child  because  his  parents  are  in  need  of  his  earnings  is  only  a 
temporary  expediency  which  instead  of  being  beneficial  is  often 
a  detriment  to  parent  and  child  alike.  It  encourages  indolence  and 
dependence  in  parents  for  which  it  sacrifices  the  health  of  the  child. 
It  is  better  that  the  state  should  support  ,a  few  really  needy  families 
than  to  favor  a  practice  which  abrogates  the  law.  Further,  the 
granting  of  permits  during  the  school  vacations  changes  the  habits 
and  ambitions  of  children  and  enables  them  to  become  employed 
in  factories  where,  once  legally  entered,  factory  inspectors  cannot 
always  find  them.  On  account  of  the  comparatively  short  period 
of  the  compulsory  school  attendance  the  law  is  also  often  restricted 
so  as  to  apply  only  to  about  half  of  the  year  and  in  some  states  to 
even  less. 

Illinois  in  its  latest  law  has  avoided  the  evils  of  the  affidavit 
system.  This  law,  adopted  in  1903,  besides  the  common  provision 
for  the  maintenance  of  a  register  and  record  of  the  minors  employed, 
requires  as  a  condition  for  employment  the  deposit  of  an  age  and 
school  certificate  by  the  child,  this  certificate  to  be  approved  by  the 
school  superintendent  or  director  or  by  some  one  authorized  by  him 
in  writing.  The  certificate  is  in  no  case  to  be  approved  unless  record 
evidence  as  to  age  is  given,  but  where  such  evidence  is  not  obtainable 
the  information  may  be  given  by  the  parents.  The  law  requires  the 
school  board  to  provide  an  office  where  the  certificates  are  to  be 
issued  and  recorded,  and  age  statistics  to  be  maintained.  But  before 
the  age  certificate  is  accepted  a  certificate  of  school  attendance  must 
first  be  presented,  a  duplicate  of  which  is  sent  to  the  factory  inspec¬ 
tor’s  office.  No  minor  between  fourteen  and  sixteen  years  is  to  be 
employed  who  cannot  read  and  write  simple  sentences,  in  cities 
where  public  and  evening  schools  are  maintained,  unless  such  minor 
attends  the  evening  school  or  is  employed  during  the  vacation  only. 
Complaints  for  violation  of  the  law  may  be  made  to  the  school  board 
of  the  district  which  is  to  report  them  to  the  factory  inspectors  for 
prosecution. 

This  law  escapes  the  evils  which  confront  Michigan  and  Indi¬ 
ana,  and  which  also  confronted  Wisconsin  under  the  law  of  1899, 
in  that  it  does  not  go  to  the  parents  for  information  until  the  last 
resort.  The  board  of  education  is  required  to  maintain  a  complete 
record  of  ages  of  all  children  in  its  district.  Since  a  copy  of  these 


Child  Labor  Legislation  in  Northern  Central  States 


ii 


certificates  is  required  to  be  deposited  with  the  factory  inspector’s 
office,  any  discrepancies  or  suspicious  circumstances  can  easily  be 
detected.  The  means  by  which  this  law  can  be  evaded  is  where 
parents  must  be  asked  for  information  and  in  the  forging  of  cer¬ 
tificates.  In  suspicious  cases  evidence  can  thus  be  obtained  without 
difficulty  and  as  many  as  from  1,000  to  1,500  violations  are  success¬ 
fully  prosecuted  annually. 

There  should  be  mentioned  in  this  connection  a  growing  ten¬ 
dency  to  place  in  the  inspectors  a  large  discretionary  power.  In¬ 
spectors  on  their  tours  found  large  numbers  of  children  who  were 
over  the  minimum  age  engaged  in  occupations  which  slowly  but 
certainly  were  crippling  them,  injuring  their  health  or  exposing 
to  danger  their  limbs  or  very  life  itself.  This  gave  rise  in  Ohio  to 
a  provision  which  has  since  been  adopted  in  substance  in  Michigan 
and  Illinois,  and  which  provides  that  no  child  under  sixteen  years 
of  age  shall  be  engaged  in  any  employment  whereby  its  life  or  limb 
is  endangered  or  its  health  is  likely  to  be  injured,  or  its  morals  may 
be  depraved,  and  places  the  duty  of  enforcement  on  the  factory 
inspectors.  The  Ohio  provision  was  general  and  indefinite  and 
compelled  the  inspectors  to  define  such  dangerous  occupations.  An 
extensive  classification  of  occupations  was  made  including  in  such 
danger  list  every  operation  which  could  in  any  manner  be  con¬ 
strued  to  be  dangerous  to  health  or  morals,  and  so  rigidly  is  it  said 
to  be  enforced  that  the  employment  of  children  under  sixteen  years 
in  such  occupations  has  become  practically  impossible.  Illinois,  in 
its  law  of  1897,  had  a  provision  very  much  like  that  of  Ohio,  but  in 
the  law  of  1903,  rejected  the  general  terms  and  prohibited  abso¬ 
lutely  the  employment  of  children  under  sixteen  years  of  age  in  a 
large  number  of  enumerated  occupations,  els  the  cleaning  and  oiling 
of  machinery,  operating  cutting  and  stamping  machinery,  and  hand¬ 
ling  injurious  chemicals.  The  effect  of  this  law  has  been  to  raise  the 
minimum  age  to  sixteen  years  in  all  dangerous  occupations  in  those 
states  which  have  adopted  such  a  statute  and  where  it  is  enforced. 

But  the  child  labor  law,  no  matter  how  drastic  its  terms  or 
how  rigid  its  provisions  for  enforcement,  is  still  destined  to  failure  so 
long  as  legislatures  fail  to  appreciate  that  its  success  is  largely  deter¬ 
mined  by  supplemental  legislation.  By  discharging  the  child  from 
employment,  but  going  no  further  than  that,  the  state  has  only  par¬ 
tially  discharged  its  duty.  Idleness  in  a  large  city  is  not  always  to  be 


12  Child  Labor  Legislation  in  Northern  Central  States 

preferred  to  some  kinds  of  employment,  but  in  no  case  is  employment 
to  be  preferred  to  the  public  schools.  Many  states  boast  on  their 
statute  books  a  law  which  appears  to  be  far-reaching  enough,  but 
which  does  not  accomplish  the  full  measure  of  good  because  it  only 
causes  the  discharge  of  the  child  who  immediately  seeks  employment 
in  some  other  occupation,  equally  in  violation  of  the  law,  or  what  is 
often  even  worse,  leads  a  life  on  the  streets.  The  child  labor  laws 
cannot  be  enforced  as  a  unit.  They  can  never  accomplish  their  real 
end  until  the  whole  child  problem  is  regarded  as  one  distinct  entity, 
and  there  is  enacted  a  comprehensive  scheme  of  which  the  child 
labor  law  and  the  compulsory  educational  law  are  integral  parts. 
The  educational  system  must  be  so  adapted  to  the  industrial  system, 
dovetailed  into  it,  so  as  to  give  the  widest  possible  range  of  school 
life  consistent  with  industrial  training  and  ultimate  social  good, 
and  the  machinery  of  enforcement  of  both  must  be  made  to  work  in 
harmony  and  co-operation. 

The  Northern  Central  states  now  recognize  this  necesary  inter¬ 
relation.  Each  of  these  states  has  a  compulsory  educational  law 
requiring  school  attendance  up  to  the  minimum  age  of  employment. 
For  the  enforcement  of  these  laws  truancy  officers  are  provided, 
whose  powers  and  duties  vary  somewhat  in  the  different  states.  The 
laws  of  Indiana,  Illinois  and  Michigan  go  no  further  than  to  direct 
the  truancy  officers  to  investigate  and  report  violations  of  the  laws 
to  parents  and  to  prosecute  those  liable.  The  Illinois  law  is  in  reality 
stronger  than  would  appear  from  a  reading  of  the  section  because 
the  labor  laws  vest  in  the  school  authorities  the  power  and  duty  to 
grant  the  age  and  school  certificates  for  employment  and  sending 
copies  thereof  to  the  factory  inspectors.  Ohio  has  vested  her  tru¬ 
ancy  officers  with  police’  powers  and  authorizes  them  to  enter  fac¬ 
tories  and  other  places  of  employment  of  children,  to  discharge  the 
children  and  place  them  in  the  public  schools  and  to  prosecute  both 
the  parents  and  the  employer  for  the  violation.  Wisconsin  has  not 
given  the  powers  of  factory  inspectors  in  this  regard  to  the  truancy 
officers,  but  makes  up  for  this  partially  by  giving  to  the  factory 
inspectors  all  the  powers  of  truancy  officers,  thus  enabling  an  inspec¬ 
tor  to  follow  up  a  discharge  from  employment  and  place  the  child 
in  the  control  of  the  school  authorities. 

It  would  appear  from  this  review  that  the  future  development 
of  child  labor  legislation  is  likely  to  vary  somewhat  from  certain 


Child  Labor  Legislation  in  Northern  Central  States  13 

existing  provisions.  The  experience  of  every  state  with  the  affidavit 
system  shows  conclusively  that  other  means  of  enforcement  must  be 
adopted.  The  legislatures  must  consider  that  to  permit  opportunity 
for  evasion  means  to  sanction  evasion.  In  this  respect  the  present 
Wisconsin  and  Illinois  laws  offer  some  relief  in  placing  the  power 
to  grant  permits  beyond  the  influence  of  parents.  The  difficulty 
to-day,  as  ten  years  ago,  is  still  with  the  enforcement  of  the  law. 
Then  it  was  more  a  matter  of  error  in  method ;  to-day  it  is  insuffi¬ 
ciency  of  means.  Every  state  has  placed  the  duty  of  enforcing  the 
law  upon  the  factory  inspectors,  but  no  state  has  a  force  of  inspec¬ 
tors  large  enough  to  cover  thoroughly  the  field  and  give  it  such  con¬ 
sideration  as  it  requires.  Prosecutions  have  been  numerous  and 
have  succeeded  in  causing  employers  to  hesitate  before  they  entered 
upon  an  agreement  for  illegal  employment.  With  the  great  indus¬ 
trial  activity  of  recent  years  the  number  of  violations  of  the  law 
has  increased  to  some  extent,  but  the  chief  remedy  for  this  lies  in 
extending  and  adding  to  the  inspection  force. 

Child  labor  legislation  in  the  Northern  Central  States  to-day 
occupies  a  favorable  position.  This  is  due  largely  to  the  change 
of  opinion  by  the  public  and  by  the  employers  as  a  body.  Public 
opinion  is  not  created  in  a  day  nor  does  it  always  act  promptly  even 
after  it  has  been  aroused.  The  bureaus  of  labor  and  factory  inspec¬ 
tion  have,  through  their  persistent  work,  helped  to  place  this  prob¬ 
lem  in  its  true  light  and  this  in  turn  has  assisted  in  creating  a  gen¬ 
eral  demand  for  effective  child  labor  laws.  Further,  the  employers 
who  formerly  fought  every  step  in  the  progress  of  this  legislation 
have  since  learned  that  the  evils  which  they  feared  were  largely 
imaginary  and  that  industry  will  not  suffer  if  the  law  is  uniformly 
enforced.  In  fact  some  of  the  strongest  supporters  of  child  labor 
laws  to-day  are  employers  who  formerly  opposed  them.  Another 
force  which  tends  to  alleviate  the  difficulties  is  the  growing  efficiency 
of  the  school  laws,  and  the  passage  of  statutes  prohibiting  the 
employment  of  children  in  violation  of  the  school  laws  together 
with  the  granting  of  concurrent  powers  for  the  enforcement  of  these 
laws  to  the  factory  inspectors  and  the  truancy  officers.  These  forces 
in  their  slow  but  not  uncertain  way,  are  bringing  together  the  child 
labor  law  and  the  compulsory  educational  law  into  the  harmonious 
relationship  of  one  complete  scheme,  where  each,  though  thorough, 
in  its  narrow  sense,  must  in  its  broader  meaning  be  a  supplement  to 
the  other. 


National  ICabor  Committer 

105  EAST  2  2d  STREET 

N  EW  YORK  CITY 


ORGANIZED  APRIL  15,  1004 


OFFICERS 


FELIX  ADLER, 

CHAIRMAN 

Homer  Folks, 

Vice-Chairman 


Samuel  mccune  Lindsay, 

SECRETARY 

v.  everit  macy, 

TREASURER 


A.  J.  Mckelway  Owen  R.  Lovejoy 

assistant  Secretaries 


BOARD  OF  TRUSTEES 


Felix  adler,  chairman 
Robert  w.  de  forest 
Edward  t.  Devine 
Homer  FOLKS 
John  s.  Huyler 
Mrs.  Florence  Kelley 


James  h.  Kirkland 
v.  everit  macy 
Edgar  Gardner  murphy 
ISAAC  N.  SELIGMAN 

Paul  m.  Warburg 
John  W.  Wood 


OBJECTS 

To  PROMOTE  THE  WELFARE  OF  SOCIETY,  WITH  RESPECT  TO  THE  EMPLOYMENT 
OF  CHILDREN  IN  G  A I  N  FU  L  OCC  U  PATI  O  NS. 

TO  INVESTIGATE  AND  REPORT  THE  FACTS  CONCERNING  CHILD  LABOR. 

TO  RAISE  THE  STANDARD  OF  PUBLIC  OPINION  AND  PARENTAL  RESPONSI¬ 
BILITY  WITH  RESPECT  TO  THE  EMPLOYMENT  OFCHILDREN. 

TO  ASSIST  IN  PROTECTING  CHILDREN  BY  SUITABLE  LEGISLATION  AGAINST 
PREMATURE  OR  OTHERWISE  INJURIOUS  EMPLOYMENT,  AND  THUS 
TO  AID  IN  SECURING  FOR  THEM  AN  OPPORTUNITY  FOR  ELEMEN¬ 
TARY  EDUCATION  AND  PHYSICAL  DEVELO  PM  ENT  SU  FFI  Cl  ENT  FOR 
THE  DEMANDS  OF  CITIZENSHIP  AND  THE  REQUIREMENTS  OF 
INDUSTRIAL  EFFICIENCY. 

TO  AID  IN  PROMOTING  THE  ENFORCEMENT  OF  LAWS  RELATING  TO  CHILD 
LABOR. 

TO  CO-ORDINATE,  UNIFY  AND  SUPPLEMENT  THE  WORK  OF  STATE  OR  LOCAL 
CHILD  LABOR  COMMITTEES,  AND  ENCOURAGE  THE  FORMATION 
OF  SUCH  COMMITTEES  WHERE  THEY  DO  NOT  EXIST. 


PUBLICATIONS  OF 
®he  National  (Hhtlil  Eabor  (Crnnnutt?? 

The  following  is  a  list  of  the  publications  of  the  National  Child  Labor 
Committee,  single  copies  of  which  may  be  had  gratis,  except  as  otherwise 
noted,  upon  application  to  the  secretary,  Samuel  McCune  Lindsay,  105  East 
Twenty-second  Street,  New  York  City.  Those  out  of  print  will  be  reprinted 
by  the  committee  if  the  demand  for  them  warrants  it. 

The  smaller  series  is  in  the  form  of  leaflets  by  6  inches,  which 
fit  into  an  ordinary-sized  envelope  and  are  convenient  for  mailing.  The 
larger  size,  6  by  9  inches,  is  in  a  more  convenient  form  for  library  file  and 
permanent  reference.  Publications  in  both  the  smaller  and  larger  series  will 
be  furnished  in  quantities  of  fifty  copies  or  over  at  cost  price,  for  distri¬ 
bution  by  clubs,  societies  or  individuals  interested  in  the  cause  of  child 
labor;  and  persons  receiving  single  copies  who  do  not  wish  to  keep  them 
longer  for  personal  use  are  requested,  whenever  possible,  to  send  them  to 
others  whose  interest  in  the  subject  may  thus  be  aroused. 

/.  SMALLER  SERIES:  - 

1.  Folder  giving  names  and  addresses  of  the  members  of  the  National  Child 

Labor  Committee,  statement  of  the  Objects  of  the  Committee,  and  list  of 
executive  officers.  Pp.  8. 

2.  “Illiteracy  Promoted  by  Perjury/'  A  statement  from  the  Pennsylvania 

Child  Labor  Committee  of  conditions  among  children  at  work  in  Penn¬ 
sylvania  and  on  the  legislation  which  has  been  passed  for  their  protection. 
Pp.  16. 

3.  “Children  Who  Work  at  Night."  A  report  of  investigations  into  the 

conditions  of  child  labor  in  various  industries  in  Pennsylvania,  and  the 
glass  industry  in  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois.  Pp.  24. 

4.  “Unprotected  Children."  A  discussion  of  children  in  occupations  not 

usually  covered  by  child  labor  legislation.  Pp.  20. 

5.  “The  Cost  of  Child  Labor."  A  study  of  diseased  and  disabled  children. 

Pp.  36. 

6.  “Dependent  Parents."  A  discussion  of  the  problem  of  the  widow  de¬ 

pendent  on  her  young  children  for  support.  Pp.  12. 

II.  LARGER  SERIES: 

1.  Program  of  the  First  Annual  Meeting  of  the  National  Committee,  held 

in  New  York  City,  February  14-16,  1905.  Pp.  4. 

2.  “Child  Labor."  A  volume  containing  the  papers  and  addresses,  and  the 

proceedings  of  the  First  Annual  Meeting  of  the  National  Committee, 
also  two  specially  contributed  articles  on  the  subject  of  child  labor.  Pp. 
176.  Price,  cloth  bound,  $1.25;  paper  binding,  $1.00. 


The  papers  and  addresses  printed  separately  and  for  most  part  available 
for  free  distribution,  as  noted  below,  are  marked  thus  The  two 

special  contributions  to  this  list  are  marked  thus  “f”. 

3.  “The  School  as  a  Force  Arrayed  Against  Child  Labor.”  By  James  H. 

Kirkland,  Chancellor,  Vanderbilt  University,  Nashville,  Tenn.  Pp.  8.* 

4.  “Child  Labor  from  the  Employer's  Point  of  View.”  By  Rev.  Dr.  Emil 

G.  Hirsch,  Professor  of  Rabbinical  Literature  and  Philosophy  in  the 
University  of  Chicago.  Pp.  8.* 

5.  “The  Test  of  Effective  Child  Labor  Legislation.”  By  Owen  R.  Love- 

joy,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  National  Child  Labor  Committee.  Pp.  8.* 

6.  “Child  Labor  Legislation  and  Methods  of  Enforcement  in  the 

Western  States.”  By  Judge  Ben.  B.  Lindsey,  Juvenile  Court,  Denver, 
Colo.  Pp.  8* 

7.  “Child  Labor  Legislation  and  Methods  of  Enforcement  in  the 

Northern  Central  States.”  By  Halford  Erickson,  Commissioner  of 

Labor,  Wisconsin.  Pp.  16* 

8.  “Child  Labor  Legislation  and  Methods  of  Enforcement  in  the  New 

England  and  Middle  States.”  By  Mrs.  Florence  Kelley,  Secretary  of 
the  National  Consumers’  League,  New  York.  Pp.  12.* 

9.  “Child  Labor  Legislation  and  Methods  of  Enforcement  in  the 

Southern  States.”  By  Rev.  Neal  L.  Anderson,  Montgomery,  Ala.  Pp. 

20  * 

10.  “The  Work  of  the  General  Federation  of  Women’s  Clubs  Against 
Child  Labor.”  By  Mrs.  A.  O.  Granger,  Cartersville,  Ga.,  Chairman  of 
Child,  Labor  Committee,  General  Federation  of  Women’s  Clubs.  Pp.  8.* 

11.  “Child  Labor  in  the  United  States  and  Its  Great  Attendant  Evils.” 
By  Felix  Adler,  Ph.  D.,  Chairman  of  the  National  Child  Labor  Commit¬ 
tee,  and  Professor  of  Political  and  Social  Ethics  in  Columbia  University, 
New  York.  Pp.  16.* 

12.  “Child  Labor  in  Southern  Industry.”  By  A.  J.  McKelway,  Charlotte, 
N.  C.,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  National  Child  Labor  Committee. 
Pp.  8* 

13.  “Child  Labor  Legislation — A  Requisite  for  Industrial  Efficiency.” 
By  Jane  Addams,  Hull  House,  Chicago.  Pp.  12* 

14.  “Children  in  American  Street  Trades.”  By  Myron  E.  Adams,  Head- 
worker  of  West  Side  Neighborhood  House,  New  York  City.  Pp.  24.! 

15.  “The  Operation  of  the  New  Child  Labor  Law  in  New  Jersey.”  By 
Hugh  F.  Fox,  President  of  the  Children’s  Protective  Alliance  of  New 
Jersey.  Pp.  24. t 

(*,  f.  Also  contained  in  and  printed  as  part  of  Larger  Series,  No.  2, 
“Child  Labor,”  a  volume  containing  the  papers  and  addresses,  and  the  pro¬ 
ceedings  of  the  First  Annual  Meeting  of  the  National  Committee;  also  two 
specially  contributed  articles  on  the  subject  of  child  labor.  Pp.  176.  Price, 
cloth  bound,  $1.25;  paper  binding,  $1.) 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


3  0112  064621 


